Folia archeologica 34.

14 VIOLA 'Г. DOBOSI In the rather small area

—a triangle whose perpendicular sides are made by the rectangular curve of the Danube, the hypotenuse roughly by the Komárom Százhalombatta line

—a region disputable from the point of view of an absolute chronology but well defined from that of relative chronology

—to which Tata belongs, according to all specialists dealing with this site, only the finds from the bottom of the brown Pleistocene layer of Kiskevély cave and those collected in Csákvár cave are to be added. In spite of determining them as Aurignacian, Hillebrand states from the Kiskevély finds that "both of the sites attest the handiwork of the same tribe."'

2

8 Vértes states only its Moustérian age for certain.

2

9 Concerning the few and rather atypical pebble derivatives coming from the two sites, it can be stated without doubt that they are of a similar character as the Tata ones: their age is Early Würm, in their bulk they are of quartzite pebbles split in a similar way. The number of objects to be evaluated typologically is not beyond ten; they are not homogeneous, the relative chronology stated with fauna waves

3

0 is in this case necessarily of a larger scale as usable for a proof of an identity among Tata, Kiskevély, Csák vár (and probably Süttő) (Fig. 1). The importance of the Szelim cave finds has grown after the excavation of Érd. (On ground of its very favourable situation, impressing measures and finds the cave would merit a verification, probably the searching for layers behind the funnel.) Several objects, counted previously among the chips, are now proven to be no pebbles split by chance but implements and a such the best

—or better single

—parallels in Hungary of the Érd industry

3

1 (Fig. 2). Here I should like to raise a question though it cannot be solved here and now, neither can it be settled on ground of the documentation of old cave excavations: the much-mentioned poverty in finds of our sites and the rather hackneyed statement that the caves were in some period "winter stations". To the first question I should like to remark that in the "French period"

3

2 of Hungarian Palaeolithic research the French sites were inevitably and naturally considered as norms. Most Palaeolithic cultures have till now a French "etalon". Though the old traditions are here rather losening, the situation seems to last for a time. It is, though, the question whether the West European, and especially the French situation is to be considered rather as exceptional and the coincidence of rare lucky circumstances? The quantity of find material found in Hungarian sites (in caves and in the treated periods) correspond to observations on the neighbouring areas, while our open-air sites endure also a wider comparison. The Carpathian Basin had seemingly in the Middle Palaeolithics already a ground population, not smaller at all than that of the neighbouring areas, complementing each other as for the geographical and chronological extension. 2

S Hillebrand, J., Barlangkutatás 1(1913) 160. 2

9 Vértes, L„ Arch.Ért. 85(1958) 130. 3

0 Jánossy, D., op. cit. 129.; the glacial Würm 1 starts with a strongly continental, temperate section. The author classifies Érd, Tata, Kiskevély and layers E and С of Szelim in this opening section. The fact that a layer of the last site can be broken up at least to two archaeological levels, throws light to the possibilities of archaeology and palaeontology. 3

1 Gábori—Csánk, V., Érd. 250—251; Gábori Л/., Les civilisations... 76.; Dobosi, V., Oskőkori lelőhelyek Tatán és környékén. In: Tata története. I. (Tata 1979) 34—36. 3

2 Vértes, L., Az őskőkor. . . 91—94.